Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court overturns a decision of the Circuit Court that a deceased was of unsound mind when disposing of his will, finding that: (1) the deceased had testamentary capacity when creating his last will and testament; and (2) the defendants did not exercise undue influence on the deceased.
Appeal from Circuit Court – Circuit Court held deceased (Mr Michael Buckley) was of unsound mind when he disposed of his will – deceased’s health began deteriorate in late 2010 – cancer – by early March 2011 was receiving palliative care – transverse loop colostomy 10 March 2011 – unable to eat thereafter – pain controlled with opiates – made will and testament 15 March 2011 – bequested property to the defendant – plaintiffs his siblings who would inherit the property under the rules of intestacy – claim that he lacked sufficient mental capacity – claim of undue influence on the part of the defendant - caselaw provides test for mental capacity in creating a will – caselaw provides test for undue influence - undue influence – defendant’s family alleged to have ‘monopolised’ visiting hours – no evidence – hours limited around operation – evidence of a physical altercation relating to financial difficulties between deceased and defendant – insufficient to make finding of undue influence – conversations regarding who would inherit property at family gatherings - insufficient to make finding of undue influence – no irregularities with drafting of will which give rise to undue influence - testamentary capacity – evidence given that deceased lacked testamentary capacity on 12 March 2011 – evidence given that deceased had regained mental capacity by 15 March 2011 – immobile in bed but correctly answered several questions about his affairs – discussed current affairs – denied any influence on his choice of beneficiaries – did make an error describing the acreage of his property – insufficient to make finding of lack of capacity - signature a scrawl – result of physical weakness, not mental incapacity – conflicting medical evidence regarding the effect opiates would have had on deceased’s capacity – Court held that the rational decision was to leave the property to one family member – defendant had more interest in agricultural affairs – logical choice – deceased had testamentary capacity on 15 March 2011 – Court to hear counsel on appropriate order to be made.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.